Oath Keepers

An Oath Keeper in Ferguson Denounces Abusive Policing

"Enough of this. Enough of this violence."

|

No gunfight thus far at the OK corral
Oath Keepers

This week several armed members of the Oath Keepers—a controversial group of current and former military, police, and public safety officials who have pledged not to obey unconstitutional orders—showed up at the protests against police violence in Ferguson, Missouri. They're there to protect two reporters from the conspiracy-chasing website Infowars; they do not appear to have any plans broader than that. During the city's riots last year, members of the organization stationed themselves on rooftops with rifles and fire extinguishers, announcing that they intended to protect local businesses.

Several fragments of footage have been floating around the Internet since the group returned this week, including one memorable video in which an Oath Keeper announces his belief that Donald Trump will "get rid of these people who violate our rights" if he's elected. There's also a Vine that supposedly shows an Oath Keeper telling suspicious protesters "We've got your back," though I've got to confess I can't make out anything anyone's saying in it.

But the most interesting clip I've seen this week is this one. Initially it just seems to be a shouting match between an Oath Keeper and a guy who doesn't like the group. But at the 1:43 mark, it turns into an explicit statement from the Oath Keeper about police violence:

Here's a transcript of the man's impromptu speech:

Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy in Cleveland, Ohio, was shot by a cop who never should've had a badge. That's the truth. He had an airsoft gun in his hand.

A man on the streets of New York was choked out—was choked out—for not paying his cigarette tax. I ask you a question: Since when, since when, is the penalty for not paying a cigarette tax the death penalty in the United States of America. OK? Since when?

You want to talk about killing black people? I'll talk about it. What about the guy in Cleveland that was in a Walmart holding a pellet rifle, not bothering a single soul, and a policeman runs in and shoots him dead?

Who else do we need to talk about? How many more before we come together and stop this chickenshit bullshit and come together as people and say: Enough of this. Enough of this violence. How many times?

How many times has this got to happen? They killed a white veteran in North Carolina, broke into his home and shot him. They killed a white mental health patient in New Albuquerque [sic], shot him in the back, and the officer's on film on his sergeant's car saying, "I'm gonna shoot that guy the first chance I get." You know? And it just goes on and on and on.

Jon Belmar, the St. Louis County police chief, has described the group's presence in Ferguson as "both unnecessary and inflammatory." St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger has said he wants to "insure" the Oath Keepers "are not present in the future."

Advertisement

NEXT: Hillary Clinton Keeps Making Untrue Claims About Her Use of a Private Email Server

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This faux-Constitutionalism is a blight on America’s reputation.

    1. America’s reputation is basically all blight.

      1. America’s reputation is basically all blight.
        .
        Granted, most people in other countries don’t know a whole lot of Americans so most of that reputation comes courtesy of the US government.

        1. And Hollywood (where the middle class lives in 5000 sq ft houses on elm-shaded avenues).

      2. Compared to what better Country?

        1. Sorry, we’re using the absolute moral scale today.

    2. When an officer takes the Oath, it is to the Constitution as was written. This is the power of the Oath. But sadly we have the specious idea that the Oath is only what the government says what it means. Well that is an invitation for abuse and tyranny, which is exactly what we have today.

      The blight we have today is how few people have even read the Constitution they are taking an Oath to uphold and protect, how many of those same people have no respect for the rights of others, and how few would resign rather than have any part in a policy or order that violates the rights of any citizen.

      We have lost our honor. It is a word you hardly ever hear today. Citizens have no honest respect for government because too many in government have no respect for them. The fish rots from the head down, and the head of this fish stinks.

      1. That’s not how fish rot.
        I get your point, but I also fish.

  2. The media accounts I’ve seen have desperately wanted to paint the Oath Keepers as some sort of racist hillbilly militia that’s there to intimidate the minorities and keep them in their place. But I dunno. It seems like they’re at least kinda-sorta on the protestors’ side.

    1. ” desperately wanted to paint the Oath Keepers as some sort of racist hillbilly militia”

      Do you know who else once wanted to paint people as a racist hillbilly militia?

        1. OUTRAGED WHITE MAN BRIGADE

      1. Janet Reno?

        1. Today, aside from the $PLC, Gilmore might accept James Howard Kunstler as a correct answer.

          1. I recommend Aspercreme, and a diet of pudding

            1. How is that going to help Morris Dees?

              1. The SPLC *is* almost as bad as Kuntsler

      2. The British? Maybe.

      3. Salon
        Gawker
        Vox
        Buzzfeed
        New York Times
        The New Yorker
        Vice
        BBC
        The Guardian
        NPR
        Boing Boing
        The Daily Beast
        ABC
        NBC
        MSNBC
        CBS
        PBS
        CNN
        Fox News
        Huffington Post
        Washington Post
        Washington Times
        Washington Post
        Wall Street Journal

        1. You forgot the Boston Globe.

        2. +1 Mainstreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmeeediyaaaa

    2. …paint the Oath Keepers as some sort of racist hillbilly militia…

      That’s pretty much been the media’s narrative on the group since day one.

    3. Tangent; I remember reading a Washington City Paper article (I know, not the greatest source for information) in the forced relocation of families living in the Shenandoah National Park area. It contended that a lot of the motive was a Progressive desire to have those families closer to towns where the progressives could exert social pressure on them to conform more closely to Progressive ideals, and that a lot of the “ignorant, inbred, stupid hillbilly” stereotype is a deliberate propaganda effort dating to these times.

      How much truth is there to this? Who knows? Sure SOUNDS like typcial Proggie behavior, though?..

  3. Obviously, if what I see on video doesn’t confirm my biased preexisting expectations, then it can’t be true.

  4. …an Oath Keeper announces his belief that Donald Trump will “get rid of these people who violate our rights” if he’s elected.

    Only if they leave the country in disgust for other reasons.

  5. He had them until he brought up the white people killed. They don’t matter.

    1. Common ground always matters…

      1. You don’t really understand sarcasm do you?

    2. There’s no moral equivalence unless they decide there’s moral equivalence.

    3. #ONLYBlackLivesMatter

  6. But…but…but…I remember reading somewhere that the Oath Keepers are a “patriot” group “flouncing” around Ferguson with “assault rifles”. I dunno where I read that, probably some disreputable rag with a commentariat dumber than a truckload of woodchippers.

      1. I stand corrected. I may have mentioned that I’m partially deaf in my right foot so I have a hard time telling the difference between a traipse and a flounce and a sashay.

        1. Sashay is the gay one.

          NTTAWWT

      2. Are you sure they weren’t mincing?

        1. GAMMMBOLLL!!!

        2. +1 mosey

    1. Impossible. Next, I suppose you’ll tell us that real libertarians supporting paying taxes for Planned Parenthood!

    2. You calling ME dumb?!

  7. The media accounts I’ve seen have desperately wanted to paint the Oath Keepers as some sort of racist hillbilly militia

    It’s crazy gun-toting hillbillies, all the way down.

  8. Whoever designed the Oath Keepers’ emblem… I see what you did there.

    1. The silhouette of a fella straddling a broomstick?

      Appears the Oath Keepers are modern day witches. Possibly a Wicca group. -or- Judging by the way he’s holding his stick, it could be some form of phallic Rainbow symbolism….

      There’s a lot going on in that patch.

      1. He;s obviously using his rifle to compensate for his micro penis.

    2. Years ago I donated to a group I thought called themselves Oath Keepers, they were involved in the Michael New case. If they weren’t officially the same group, they were certainly on the same path. (If you aren’t familiar with the New case, he was a soldier court-martialled for refusing to wear the insignia of and place himself under the command of the UN on the grounds that it was an unlawful order absent a Congressional declaration of war and absent himself having taken some sort of oath to protect and defend the constitution of the UN rather than of the US. He lost the case partly on the grounds that Clinton had signed a secret executive order making everything perfectly legal and partly on the grounds that the US had a treaty with the UN and apparently international treaties trump the US Constitution. Interesting lessons taught there – and at least Obama seems to have been paying attention.)

      1. While they don’t trump the Constitution, I believe the Constitution itself places treaties on equal footing with acts of Congress (provided they’re ratified by the Senate, of course). So it seems legit to say that an obligation to go to war under a treaty would be as a legitimate as a Congressional declaration of war. Which is one reason to avoid entangling alliances, etc.

  9. Jesse, were the Oath Keepers “traipsing” around?

    /ENB

    St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger has said he wants to “insure” the Oath Keepers “are not present in the future.”

    Fuck off, slaver.

  10. The Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson has the potential to be only bad news for the organization. They get demonized by both sides –the abusive authoritarians that the Oath explicity opposes, and the race baiters who want to see them as oppressors– regardless of what happens.

    Either way, if any Oath Keeper gets into a situation where force is needed, the organization as a whole loses.

    1. Yeah, they should probably just shut the hell up and go home, eh?

      1. Not exactly what i was getting at. I’m just saying its going to be hard for them to come out of this in a positive light. I’m not a critic.

        1. The term “integrity” is best defined as “doing the right thing no matter what the consequences may be”.

  11. But wouldn’t it be just a little bit interesting if they end up in a situation where they defend a black protestor from the police? Just a little bit?

    1. Yes, you can imagine the headlines: HILLBILLY HELPS HOMEBOY!

      1. Doubtful. The storyline would be “Sneaky-ass racist tries to pretend he’s not a racist by ‘defending’ a black protestor. Fortunately for the black protestor, the cameras were rolling so that sneaky-ass racist couldn’t do to the protestor what we all know he really wanted to do and what we all know he would have done if the cameras were not there.”

        1. Yeah, your scenario is more realistic.

    2. They’ve already been in a situation of defending nonwhite business owners, but that didn’t stop the Narrative, did it?

    3. Indeed.

    4. But wouldn’t it be just a little bit interesting if they end up in a situation where they are slaughtered for attempting to defend a black protestor from the police?

      ftfy

      1. That is a good fix sarc.

      2. I am sure that if the OK are serious, the cops would flee like pussies in the wind.

      3. Police that are bloodthirsty don’t like armed targets. They are cowards. Therefore, this situation is unlikely.

    5. Progs would dig through his social media accounts and find that he re-tweeted an old racist bar joke six years ago and proceed to make him out to be the Grand Dragon of the KKK, thus cancelling out his defense of any black protestors.

  12. A rare “death cross” appeared Tuesday in the chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, suggesting the stock market may have already begun a new long-term downtrend.

    This is a real “news” article? ffs…humanity is going insane en masse

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..06040.html

    1. I know I get all my financial news from Yahoo!.

    2. Hey, technical analysis is a tool. It not 100% accurate, but I don’t think analyzing price history is necessarily on the same basis as astrology.

      Naturally, as with everything else in the world, there are charlatans and hucksters who use technical analysis to peddle a load of codswallop.

      On the other hand, those “quants” that have pretty much taken over stock trading and made billions? That’s technical analysis.

      1. Indeed. Haven’t seen the chart but Japanese candlestick charting is based on 300 years of rice prices. Throw in that charting is the only way to gauge/guess/take-stab-at investor psychology and it is a legitimate tool.

      1. A COMET!!!

        The crops are going to fail! We will have three armed babies for the next month! Aieee!

        1. So you’re too poor to arm ALL the babies? Get out of here, peasant!

  13. Jon Belmar, the St. Louis County police chief, has described the group’s presence in Ferguson as “both unnecessary and inflammatory.” St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger has said he wants to “insure” the Oath Keepers “are not present in the future.”

    Since when would a County Executive have the authority to make sure someone or some group can’t be part of a public demonstration?

    Let’s see if the useful progressive idiots side with the government on this one. It will be telling if they do.

    1. You know what’s unnecessary and inflammatory? Those “peaceful demonstrators” who constantly, through a series of unfortunate coincidences, attract violent hangers-on who burn shops and shoot at cops.

      1. Literally inflammatory.

        And I literally know what ‘literally’ means.

    2. Let’s see if the useful progressive idiots side with the government on this one.

      Oh, I think we all know the answer to that. Cops cracking “racist white hillbilly militia types” skulls is doubleplusgood. They only care about police brutality when the victim is someone with brown skin.

      1. Black lives matter. Your life doesn’t.

  14. I wonder how much play this guy’s comments will get. He comes across as sane and sober, points out numerous examples involving both black and white victims, and says nothing objectionable. Of course, the County Exec wants people like him not present in the future.

    1. It’s because the county exec and the rest of the government apparatus are more than happy to let this be about race. As long as you don’t touch their beloved lack of accountability and unions, they’ll let the identity politics sideshow continue.

      1. The feelz. Of course. What was I thinking.

  15. Armed thug denounces armed thugs?

  16. Remember when we had to vote for Obama because he was going to keep us out of a really big war? Neither do I.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..r-war.html

    1. I’m sure John Kerry is already on a plane to put a stop to this. Just like he brokered the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Just like he has ushered in peace, calm, and unity in the Middle East.

      1. It’s like the entire Middle East is on Valium.

    2. After living through close to a half a century of Cold War insanity, I sincerely thought it was finally finished. And, then we had to vote for Obama.

      1. He was the only alternative and everyone always wanted to vote for a black man for President.

    3. It’s going to be really exciting if Russia invades Scandinavia since based on what I’ve been reading, none of those countries have armies that can actually defend them anymore.

      1. Finland does. Sweden and Norway have virtually nothing. But Finland is not part of NATO. It was always a non aligned nation. And it has been preparing to defend against Russian invasion since 1940. The Russians are utterly incompetent militarily and having nothing but numbers. If they invade Finland they might win by shear numbers but there will a whole lot of dead Russians before it is over.

        1. You’re right, apparently Finland has 900,000 military reservists.

          It’s the Swedes I keep hearing about given the way they’ve dismantled their military to pay for the welfare state. Sweden has 14,000 frontline personnel and 26,000 reservists.

          How long do you think 40,000 untested Swedes would last in a war with Russia?

          1. How long did it take them to march through the Crimea? The Fins in contrast are tough and really have a sense of national pride. The Winter War in 1940 was pretty amazing. Basically a few dozen Fins with sub machine guns and five polar bears held the entire red army off for almost two months.

            1. Simo H?yh? used a M/28-30, not a submachine gun.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin?Nagant#Finland

          2. “How long do you think 40,000 untested Swedes would last in a war with Russia?”

            I don’t know, but I think it would make a pretty sexy version of Red Dawn with Subtitles.

            There would have to be some reason why the New Wolverines wear nothing but swimsuits, but a decent screenwriter can make that happen. Nuclear Summer or something.

            1. I don’t know, but I think it would make a pretty sexy version of Red Dawn with Subtitles.

              Oooh, that’d be a cool movie.

              Russia for some reason invades Sweden. Swedes continue complacently as before, although there are hilarious culture conflicts between Russian and PC Swedish culture. In the meantime, Swedish muslims start a guerrilla revolt against Russians.
              So it’d be half Red Dawn, half ‘Allo, ‘Allo

              1. With ABBA and Nordic Death Metal for the soundtrack.

          3. How long do you think 40,000 untested Swedes would last in a war with Russia?

            Longer than you might think. I expect that Russia would actually have trouble invading anyone. I assume the functional parts of the military are busy in Ukraine right now.

          4. How long do you think 40,000 untested Swedes would last in a war with Russia?

            Depends if they can negotiate a new Union contract before they’re overrun.

          5. Russia is having troubles in Ukraine and never fully pacified the Caucuses. So, pretty long actually. And the rest of Europe might have an issue with it.

          6. “How long do you think 40,000 untested Swedes would last in a war with Russia?”

            How long do you think 40,000 untested Swedes would last in a war with Finland?

    4. Isn’t it weird how Democrats seem to have a penchant for antagonizing authoritarian regimes for no discernible reason?

  17. This group should be embraced by Libertarian minded people, not accused of traipsing.

    1. Indeed. This IS the militia envisioned by the Founders, after all.

    2. Yes because vigilante justice is what libertarianism is all about…

      1. When have they engaged in vigilante justice? Point me to all the lynchings and illegal arrests of which the Oath Keepers are accused.

        I’ll wait.

        1. When have they engaged in vigilante justice?

          I have found that many people do not see a distinction between self defense and vigilante justice. So if you support people arming themselves for self defense, then to them you support vigilante justice.

          1. It’s not self-defense when you travel to another city in order to enforce security.

            1. Unless you can show me an example of them using force, then I see no vigilante justice. By the way, self-defense isn’t just an individual thing. People can engage in organized self-defense as well. Looks to me like they’re arming themselves and prepared to defend themselves. I don’t see them doing anything proactive.

            2. Security is not self-defense? What are you talking about?

            3. In order to defend those who cannot defend themselves? I’m sorry, didn’t that used to be called “honorable”?

              How jacked up people are these days…

        2. The Dr. has more important things to do

        3. They are in Ferguson to provide justice that the state should be providing. They are protecting businesses and people from being harmed. Ergo they are engaging in a sort of extrajudicial justice.
          I have no problem with LEOs and military who want to pledge to uphold the Constitution, I just don’t agree that we need to resort to anarchy with uninvited heavily armed civilians patrolling the streets.

          1. since state-provided justice is the heart of the issue here, no matter how unsympathetic Michael Brown may be, this is the perfect setting for such a group. And if they’re protecting businesses, they are already a step ahead of law enforcement. There are alternatives between the rule of law and anarchy, you know.

            1. Yes the police and National Guard have completely failed to protect the people they allegedly serve not only in Ferguson but nationwide, but we should be focusing our efforts to curb the rising police state while making sure that LEOs continue to protect and serve their communities, not beat the shit out of them. There is no alternative to the Rule of Law besides anarchy. We must stand for a clear, objective legal system.

              1. There is no alternative to the Rule of Law besides anarchy.

                I disagree completely. If those tasked with upholding and enforcing the law fail in their duties, then I see no problem with citizens doing it themselves. If you want to call that vigilante justice, then so be it. But it’s better than no justice at all, and it certainly isn’t anarchy.

                1. And it’s not vigilante justice unless they’re meting out justice – which they’re not. They’re not tracking people down and punishing them. They’re not a lynch mob.

                  It’s a self-defense organization opposed to capricious state power.

                  1. They’re not tracking people down and punishing them.

                    Good point. Protecting yourself or your property from a criminal in the act is self defense. Hunting them down afterwards is vigilante justice.

                    1. Protecting another person or another’s property from a criminal in the act is also self defense. A hired security guard does participate in vigilante justice when he guards a Brinks truck. Oprah’s bodyguards do not engage in vigilante justice when they protect her from deranged fans. The same reasoning should apply to a voluntary bodyguard.

              2. And how do you plan to effect that? Ask nicely?

                Quis custodes ipsos custodiet.

              3. Yes the police and National Guard have completely failed to protect the people they allegedly serve not only in Ferguson but nationwide, but we should be focusing our efforts to curb the rising police state while making sure that LEOs continue to protect and serve their communities, not beat the shit out of them. There is no alternative to the Rule of Law besides anarchy. We must stand for a clear, objective legal system.

                ^ I would say this is Tulpa but he has a link to Georgetown and that’s a bit too high quality a university for Tulpa.

                1. “”he has a link to Georgetown””

                  the better the school, the more avant-garde the shithead

              4. We must stand for a clear, objective legal system.

                In part, that is what is happening. You have to stand for it and demand it be accountable.

            2. Anarchy, wareagle, ANARCHY!!!!!

              1. Y’all act like I routinely take it up the ass from the cops at my local precinct. I am no fan of our current police state but it must be reformed and cops must be accountable for their actions. I’m just not comfortable with a bunch of random people walking down the street acting like they are protecting me when I didn’t ask them to. If i want to protect myself, I’ll go to a gun shop and buy a piece.

                1. I’m just not comfortable with a bunch of random people walking down the street acting like they are protecting me when I didn’t ask them to.

                  I’m no fan of the police either. Though it wouldn’t bother me if my neighbors did what you describe. Wouldn’t bother me a bit.

                  1. I’m no fan of the police either.

                    *golf clap*

                2. “. I’m just not comfortable”

                  Its notable that, under the constitution, your personal permission isn’t actually required

                  1. *Rousing applause while a crying bald eagle tears Hitler’s head off and presents it to Jesus”

                    1. Best ending to a music video. Ever. Of all time.

                    2. I would like to point out in regards to this:

                      There is no alternative to the Rule of Law besides anarchy.

                      That we are EXACTLY in an alternative state right now. It is called Rule by Man.

                      We have not been under Rule by Law for a very long time (If ever really, but at least since Wikard). The Cops, Prosecutors (Looking at chipper candidate numero uno), and Judges, in a disproportionate number of instances are acting outside the law. They are by the very definition criminals. Our system of governance provides for the people to hold criminals accountable. And we should return to it. That system IS Rule by Law. And the only way to insure we follow that system to enforce you will with equal power.

          2. They are protecting businesses and people from being harmed. Ergo they are engaging in a sort of extrajudicial justice.

            Protecting people from being harmed is not extrajudicial justice. Unless you think that me stopping a woman from being raped is unacceptable.

            1. Protecting people from being harmed is not extrajudicial justice.

              Self defense means not defending others! You can only defend yourself! You’re supposed to allow things like rape and assault and murder and vandalism and destruction of property and looting to happen, even if you can prevent it!

            2. But they are acting as though they are the state which has a legal monopoly on the use of force. They have no right to initiate force except in self-defense.

              1. But they are acting as though they are the state which has a legal monopoly on the use of force.

                Wrong. The state has the legal monopoly only on the initiation of force.

                They have no right to initiate force except in self-defense.

                When have they initiated force? They are there to react to force, not initiate it.

                1. “”When have they initiated force?””

                  intellectually-dishonest doctor elides these minor distinctions.

                  1. On a less serious note, are y’all really that culturally ignorant to know that Jonathan Crane is a Batman character, also known as Scarecrow?

                    1. The books I read have fewer illustrations than the ones you read.

                    2. Funny, I don’t remember Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or Bastiat’s The Law having any pictures.

                    3. So far you’ve only demonstrated Batman reading-level ability

                    4. You, too, revel in terror and dread?

                    5. ooh, he bolsters his intellectual credibility with comic-book references

                    6. I’m not trying to bolster any credibility. I just happen to be a batman fan. It’s harmless fun.

                    7. I’m a Marvel fan. Suck it.

                    8. Stupidity is not harmless

                    9. I just happen to be a batman fan

                      The Dark Knight is quite the vigilante, isn’t he?

                    10. I knew I recognized the name, but I’m not a comic book fan so I couldn’t place it. I was also too lazy to Google it because, well, I don’t care.

                    11. No, I did not know that Jonathan Crane is a Batman character, aka Scarecrow.

                      I get it now. You like to make strawman arguments.

              2. Monopolizing the use of violence is, in and of itself, a civilizational destabilizer and a violation of the rule of law.

                There can be no rule of law where the king is the sole arbiter of the same. Likewise, there can be no rule of law where Caesar and his praetorian guard are exempt from the same.

              3. The state has no legal monopoly on force. They have a de facto monopoly but not a de jure one…yet.

                See Colorado Springs, guys shoots intruder, County says “good job, we will have this body out of here in no time, sorry for the inconvenience”.

          3. I guess the locks on my door is also vigilante justice. I’m encroaching on the state’s authority!

          4. Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.

            -Dr. Emmett Brown

        4. They are in Ferguson to provide justice that the state should be providing. They are protecting businesses and people from being harmed. Ergo they are engaging in a sort of extrajudicial justice.
          I have no problem with LEOs and military who want to pledge to uphold the Constitution, I just don’t agree that we need to resort to anarchy with uninvited heavily armed civilians patrolling the streets.

          1. “heavily armed civilians patrolling the streets.”

            You have a strange definition of anarchy

            1. The sole power of the government should be the monopoly of force, directed against those who initiate force against others. This leads to a government made up of police, courts, and military. When private citizens attempt to take on the role of the government, the use of force, there is anarchy.

              1. You keep using this “should be” phrasing all over the place, as if your personal theory has a compelling effect on reality.

              2. “”When private citizens attempt to take on the role of the government, the use of force, there is anarchy.””

                Please point me to where these Oathkeeper people were conducting arrests and confiscating people’s property?

                1. I’ll admit it, they haven’t. I’m not going to be intellectually dishonest here. I’m complaining more about the idea that instead of trying to reform our out of control police that we should all throw our support behind a bunch of unknowns who made an oath.

                  1. I’m complaining more about the idea that instead of trying to reform our out of control police that we should all throw our support behind a bunch of unknowns who made an oath.

                    I choose (C) – both.

                  2. ” I’m not going to be intellectually dishonest here.”

                    You’ll first need to go back and mop up everything you said up until this point

                    “instead of trying to reform our out of control police that we should all throw our support behind a bunch of unknowns who made an oath.”

                    And look, he just claimed he was going to STOP being intellectually dishonest?!

                    Describing “lack of outrage” as “throwing support behind” is basically a case-study in intellectual dishonesty. its like calling “Not taxing something” a “subsidy”.

                    You’re a class act.

                  3. I’m complaining more about the idea that instead of trying to reform our out of control police that we should all throw our support behind a bunch of unknowns who made an oath.

                    False choice fallacy.

                  4. trying to reform our out of control police

                    Good luck with that, too. The police won’t allow themselves to be reformed however much the people they purport to serve want them reformed.

                    we should all throw our support behind a bunch of unknowns who made an oath

                    I’m quite sure if these ‘random’ (that describes any group you don’t know, including the police) people were detaining people and confiscating property they would be roundly denounced here. But they haven’t done that. You seem afraid they will for some reason.

                  5. I’m complaining more about the idea that instead of trying to reform our out of control police that we should all throw our support behind a bunch of unknowns who made an oath.

                    I trust someone who understands what an oath is much more than someone who claims to have a monopoly on the initiation of force.

              3. The sole power of the government should be the monopoly of force, directed against those who initiate force against others.

                So you should have no right to use force against someone who initiates force against you? You’re supposed to die with a phone in your hand rather than live with a gun in your hand?

                Government has the monopoly on the initiation of force. Everyone has the right to use force for the purpose of defense.

                1. Yes of course everyone has the right to defend themselves, not to initiate force though.

                  1. I think we covered that. Again, when have the Oath Keepers initiated force?

                    You keep dodging the question. Likely because the answer is “Not once.” Which would make them a defense group, not a vigilante group, and blow your entire argument out of the water.

                    1. Yes, “Not once” is the correct answer. But I find the idea that we should allow a bunch of random guys with guns play policeman is contrary to the idea of the rule of law.

                    2. Policemen don’t prevent crime unless they are right there when the crime happens. Their job is to chase people down and drag them into court. These guys are not playing policeman, since they’re not chasing people down and dragging them into court. They’re only trying to prevent crime by being there. Something the police only do by chance.

                    3. Alright, maybe I’m wrong. I’m not stubborn enough to not listen to rational argument. As long as these oath keepers stick to being security guards, then I guess it’s better than nothing.

                    4. As long as these oath keepers stick to being security guards, then I guess it’s better than nothing.

                      On that we can agree.

                    5. Look, I’m young and sometimes don’t fully think things out. I figured I would start commenting here after being a reason reader for the last few years so I could learn more from y’all.

                    6. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. This time.

                    7. You don’t have to give me anything. If i don’t deserve something I don’t want it.

                    8. ” I figured I would start commenting here after being a reason reader for the last few years so I could learn more from y’all.”

                      I apologize if i was beating you up (i was)

                      This is the kind of thing you should start conversations with before jumping into a pit with a bunch of crusty wolves like us. Or at least be prepared to be torn limb from limb if you make the slightest wrong move.

                    9. Of course I don’t mind at all. I was wrong about the role of the oath keepers and I’m not afraid to admit it. Now when the oath keepers (or some similar group) do in fact go around and start being vigilantes, I will have a problem. But for now it doesn’t appear to be the case.

                    10. “a bunch of random guys with guns play policeman”

                      when did they arrest anyone?

                      You’re really not very good at this. for shame, gtown

                    11. I find the idea that we should allow a bunch of random guys with guns play policeman is contrary to the idea of the rule of law.

                      Why? As long as they don’t break any laws doing it, this is pretty much the definition of a militia, which is a founding idea of this country.

                      I mean, there’s no reason at all to believe that only allowing people who are immunized and privileged to play cop is a great idea, is there?

                    12. a bunch of random guys with guns play policeman

                      That pretty much describes every police force everywhere. The only difference is the “stamp” of government approval.

              4. You sir are the definition of confused.

                1. at OP

          2. Translation: The libertarian position is a monopoly on force, and we should assign it to problem actors.

            1. Also, police uniforms give the doctor an authority-boner

            2. Good luck trying to talk sense to a Georgetown college professor.

              1. I’m not a professor but good try.

                1. But part of the Georgetown set?

                  1. I’m a student but not some sort of leftist or “conservative” trash.

                    1. They’re not helping you much.

                    2. Well to be fair to the school, I’m an incoming freshman.

                    3. Well, i wish the school the best of luck

                    4. Tits or GTFO.

                    5. sorry to disappoint but male

                    6. Let me describe for you a “search function”. You’ll find it very useful in college.

                    7. As I said to sarcastic, maybe I am wrong. Y’all having given me some rational reasons as to why the oath keepers cannot be classified as a vigilante group. My initial comment was false.

                    8. Anyone can argue that they are correct, not everyone can admit they might have been wrong.

                      I shall reserve judgment until another day, young Padawan.

                    9. (polite applause)

                    10. As I said to sarcastic

                      Dude, it’s sarcasmic. I’m Irish. Well, my grandmother was. Or something. I need a drink.

                    11. thats my bad, must have autocorrected

                    12. thats my bad, must have autocorrected

                      I was making an attempt at a funny. You know… mic, Irish, need a drink…

                    13. You think its funny to be RACIST!! To the re-education camps you go!

                    14. It ain’t racist if you’re talking about yourself. But otherwise that was good. Welcome.

                    15. My initial comment was false.

                      Fair enough. At least you can admit when you were wrong and are willing to re-think your positions, which already puts you ahead of a lot of people out there. Careful though, you keep this up you might actually learn something:)

                    16. As I said to sarcastic, maybe I am wrong. Y’all having given me some rational reasons as to why the oath keepers cannot be classified as a vigilante group. My initial comment was false.

                      If you haven’t thought something out, don’t start arguing. Frame your thoughts and ask questions. There are some really smart people here and you can have good debates and learn much if you’re polite. When I first starting posting I would ask questions about topics I hadn’t really thought about. Some people thought I was trolling with my questions, but once they learned I really wanted to know their opinion and not just play gotcha, they are a great group and resource.

                    17. Ya this was just something I screwed up on. I don’t mind being attacked for holding a faulty premise though.

                    18. Some people thought I was trolling with my questions

                      Nobody ever does that here…

                    19. Nobody ever does that here…

                      Yeah, as new guy you just have to brush off the insults and argue/ask questions in good faith.

                    20. they are a great group and resource.

                      As long as you have a thick skin. We can be a pretty mean bunch.

                    21. Well I’m pretty mean to my leftist and pseudo-conservative friends so I shouldn’t expect anything different.

                    22. I’m pretty mean to my leftist…friends

                      Tread lightly in college. It doesn’t seem to be a tolerant atmosphere unless you are in a STEM field.

                    23. ^^This. Learning via argumentation doesn’t work here, and you will be flamed mercilessly. Learning via questioning does.

                    24. Fucking refresh! (Was referring to Florida Man @ 2:47)

                    25. Oooo Oooo Can I give the new poster my screed on natural rights? Pretty please?

                      /jumping up and down with raised hand

                    26. go ahead

                    27. If you have been lurking for two years it should be in there somewhere. Maybe I will find it and CopyPaste…pretty sure everyone else is tired of it BUT THAT MAKES IT MORE FUN!

                    28. WOW
                      I just lost an hour. I was searching my old comments and got side tracked reading old threads. “Emancipate Skrike’s Colorn Cells!” HA!
                      Damn those where some good time….

                      ANYWAY – Cliffs Notes
                      Rights are inherent, Constitution applies to government not me, doesnt protect rights or grant them but instead proscribes gubmit from violating them. Rights are ultimate personal authority to perform some act. All natural rights are equal. blah blah blah

                      If you seriously want me to re-write it I will. I just spent an hour completely distracted though.

          3. They are in Ferguson to provide justice that the state should be providing.

            Should but aren’t. When the state fails at one of its basic functions, what alternative is there for citizens but to defend themselves, their property, and others?

            Also, I’ll ask the same question several others have asked that you haven’t answered, so I don’t expect to answer it this time either: When have the Oath Keeper’s in Ferguson initiated force? Unless you consider the mere presense of armed men (who aren’t duly sanctioned agents of the Holy Government) to be “initiating violence” then there aren’t any. Point to one example or STFU.

          4. You are a self proclaimed Batman fan Dr. Scarecrow, yet you get on this site and throw vigilante justice out here for us to troll on you. Methinks you are the patient, not the doctor.

            1. Btw, it takes a lot to admit you’re wrong, good job. You get a cookie.

      2. did I miss the story where this group attacked citizens?

      3. Add me to those looking for the examples we should be outraged and concerned about.

        Promising to comply with the constitution?

        Anarchic bastards!

      4. Yes, because ‘vigilante’ is anything you do for yourself rather than allowing the government to handle it. Have you not been following Lenore on vigilante child-rearing and Baylen on vigilante food consumption and Ron on vigilante medicine and just about every writer here on vigilante sex?

    3. This group should be embraced by Libertarian minded people, not accused of traipsing.

      As you can see by most of the comments here, it is.

      It’s only accused of “traipsing” by D.C. Beltway left-liberals, some of whom want to earn some money by pretending to be libertarian (and not very convincingly).

    4. “This group” is aligned with Alex Jones.
      Nuff said?

  18. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..hiker.html

    I love it. In today’s America bears get better due process than humans do. And I am totally on the side of the bear. The dumb ass was hiking alone without wearing bear spray. Sure enough he ran into a female bear and her cub and the female bear thinned the gene pool for us. She did humanity a favor.

    1. Brave Mountain Lion Fends Off Group Of Hikers

      Also, you don’t wear bear spray – it’s basically aerosolized soap with a shit ton of cayenne pepper added to it. You spray it in a charging bear’s face in order to change its mind.

      1. I know that. My mistake. And yeah, I am with the mountain lion too. You go hiking up there you take your chances.

        1. I came here to chew bubble gum and make fun of John about wearing bear spray…I am all out of bubble gum and evidently too late to make fun of John…i haz a sad.

          1. I mean, if John wants to cover HIMSELF in bear spray before he heads out into the woods, it’s his funeral. But i’m not going hiking with him, or anywhere downwind of him.

            1. You cover yourself in bear spray in your tent at nite to recreate the Taco Bell Supreme Being Burrito with fire sauce. (Ok we are not supreme but I went with it…more like apex predator, ruler of our domain)

          2. Mmmm… cajun flavored hiker.

            /grizzly

      2. “”Repeated biting of the skull and face is the textbook way to fend off a human attack,” said Mike Kasperski, biologist and author of the book Hikers: Shadows In The Forest.””

        Proper old-school onion.

      3. That’s bear spray?
        .
        *discreetly hides the Paco Rabanne

    2. Bear country protocols were explained to me as: 1) wear a bell. They don’t want to deal with you anymore than you want to deal with them. 2) carry a large caliber weapon. The bell doesn’t always work.

      1. “Bear country protocols were explained to me as: 1) wear a bell”

        the whole “bears are scared by noise” thing seems to be mostly applicable to adult males of the non-grizzly variety which rarely attack people anyway

        female grizzlys with cubs? You could be rocking a boom-boox playing chumbawumba and it aint going to stop momma bear from ripping you into forest-tapas

      2. I heard bells only piss them off.

        1. Or attract curious cubs

          silence is golden, and a 12gauge is godly

        2. Montana Grizzly Bear Notice:

          In light of the rising frequency of human/grizzly bear conflicts, the Montana Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, hunters, and fishermen to take extra precautions and keep alert for bears while in the field. We advise that outdoorsmen wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as not to startle the bears that aren’t expecting them. We also advise outdoorsmen to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear.

          It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear poop. Black bear poop is smaller and contains a lot of berry seeds and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear poop has little bells in it and smells like pepper spray.

          1. I lol’d. thx.

          2. Classic.

    3. My wife and I witnessed a bear kill a “fearless” photographer in Glacier National Park.

      1. Details plz.

      2. “”fearless”‘

        fancy-man’s “stupid”

    4. wild animals doing what wild animals do. What a concept. I used to live in Asheville NC where bears were commonplace. No one felt the need to get overly comfortable with them even though they are relatively small by bear standards. They’re still bears, especially if they have cubs.

    5. Some idiots just have no fucking clue about what “Mother Nature” can be like, especially in areas like Yellowstone.

      1. So many morons – So few bears.

      2. Kids and I went hiking in Yellowstone one time. About two miles in, descending from a ridge in steep terrain toward a creek, we observed a party ascending the trail in haste. When we met, they advised that there was a grizzly bear with cubs below.

        As much as I would like to see a grizzly bear with cubs in the wild, that was the end of the trail for us: the kids and I followed them in retreat.

  19. I bet that this county executive guy would rather see rioters burn down a minority-owned store than see Oathkeepers keeping the peace.

    The previous round of riots showed that law-abiding business owners (who appear to be mainly nonwhites) can’t rely on the police or the National Guard to protect the fruits of their lifelong labor against arsonists and looters.

    The Oathkeepers are willing to do what the cops and troops wouldn’t.

    No wonder the government doesn’t like these guys showing them up.

    Literally, the government would rather tut-tut at the charred remains of some immigrant’s life work than risk having some private group protect persons and property from rioters.

    1. Literally, the government would rather tut-tut at the charred remains of some immigrant’s life work than risk having some private group protect persons and property from rioters.

      What? And undermine public trust? Next you’re going to say that cops who commit murder need to be held accountable, even if doing so undermines trust in the police!

    2. The governor’s fine work in deploying the National Guard would seem to support this view.

      And by “fine work” I mean abjectly failing to discharge the duties of his office, of course.

    3. Literally, the government would rather tut-tut at the charred remains of some immigrant’s life work than risk having some private group protect persons and property from rioters.

      It proves how completely unnecessary they all are. Of course they are hated.

      Think about it, the Oath Keepers are providing good service (for free) what the government extracts half of you pay for and provides 0 service. If the government allows this, they might lose the “hearts and minds” of those they oppress.

  20. Okay!

  21. Compare the treatment Reason gives the Oath Keepers to the fawning hagiographies they write about the Black Panthers.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..-rights-an

    Does Reason think only white people with guns are scary?

    1. I really don’t see a problem with how the Oath Keepers are being portrayed in this article at all.

      1. I was talking about the snark that ENB dished out not this article. You are right, this one is fine, though I am not sure why Jessee finds it interesting or surprising that a group that was founded to stop unconstitutional abuses by law enforcement would be upset about police brutality.

        1. Maybe what was interesting was that he listed off several examples, with names, right off the cuff. I couldn’t do that. I think the fact that they are there says that they are upset about police brutality. I know you’re always on the lookout for an excuse to accuse Reason writers of being closet progressives, but this is not a good example.

    2. like the beginning of the article says, the group is “controversial” because its members take issue with unconstitutional orders.

      1. So they’re “naggers”, then.

        1. I see what you did there.

    3. Jesus Christ, John, Reason has been reporting on the Oath Keepers for 5 years and most of their reportage has been positive. And Jesse Walker published the following in the American Conservative, which Reason cross posted:

      If the Oath Keepers’ agenda isn’t objectionable, why the panic? Partly it’s the general fear of “right-wing extremists” that has taken hold of so much of the media, a narrative that allows ordinarily sensible people to conflate all manner of dissident groups. (Obviously, you needn’t be on the Right to join the Oath Keepers, but the membership does tilt in that direction.)

      That leads to the second problem with Potok’s theory. As he suggests, the set of people attracted to violence overlaps with the set of people attracted to anti-government sentiments. The set of people attracted to violence also overlaps with the set of people who work for the government itself. Oath Keepers is in the rare position of pushing both groups toward nonviolence?of telling the rebels that there’s an alternative to lashing out and of telling officials with guns that there’s an alternative to mindlessly following orders.

      Why are you on this kick about Reason’s evil anti-conservative, anti-white biases today?

      1. I was talking about the snark ENB put out about them being there.

          1. That’s NO Okay.

          2. Come on does anyone here think Lizzy is not going to pull a Kerry Howley in a year or two?

            It is not just snark. She despises libertarians.

            Not to mention her probable membership in “Binders Full of Women”.

            1. “”does anyone here think Lizzy is not going to pull a Kerry Howley in a year or two?”

              Get really really hot and then marry a jerk?

              neither here nor there, but i always thought kerry was pretty solidly libertarian with a few soft spots, not broadly* squishy like some suggest

              (*no pun)

            2. She doesn’t despise libertarians. She just despises you.

            3. ENB does not despise libertarians. She seemed pretty libertarian when she was on The Federalist Hour. Just because she writes about “cosmo” things doesn’t mean she despises libertarians.

      2. COSMOTARIAN ORANGE LINE SOMETHING…. something something….COSMOZZ!!

      3. And look Irish, I conceded the point on the other thread. Reason really takes the gloves off once a Democrat is no longer going to run for office. They may say untrue things when they are running for office, but once they are no longer running, they are liars and Reason will tell you all about it.

      4. Yeah, the more Libertarian writers at Reason are good on the Oathkeepers. ENB sort of stepped in it there.

    4. Well, Black Panthers are only focused on using arms for protecting civil rights. You know, like for turning nasty white people away from polling places.

      1. That never actually happened. It was much ado about nothing.

        1. You mean, the video of them…you know…actually harassing white voters at a polling place…was just a Hollywood production?

    5. National media likes to highlight instances of whites with guns to avoid the obvious conclusion of what gun control advocates what ? to get guns out of the hands of nonwhites.

  22. It’s not self-defense when you travel to another city in order to enforce security.
    .
    Hillary’s Secret Service detail sez, “Go fuck yourself.”

    1. Has Hillary used her automobile to run over any more security workers lately? It’s so cute when she gets into her big hurry – no one’s standing in her way moods.

    2. Its self-defense if you are protecting yourself or others from violence.

      Why you happened to be in a place where you did that is pretty irrelevant, really.

  23. DEMOCRATZ IN COSMOTARIANS’ CLOTHING
    .
    DRINK!

  24. Focusing on the racial issue masks a MUCH BIGGER problem on the dysfunctional relationship between the citizenry and its law and regulatory enforcement forces.

    The government power-loving statists who don’t want anything to effectively change are more than happy for race to be the major issue because that prevents sufficient activist and political energy from being focused on the rampant abuses perpetrated by agents of the State against ALL of us. Worst of all, when energy is directed towards pointing out that the State actually abuses all of us in some way or another, those voices are dismissed because they refuse to focus on race.

  25. Am I the only one who thought it was friggin’ awesome to see the RT microphone stuck in that man’s face?

    1. I’ll be impressed when Russia Today sends their reporters into Eastern Ukraine

  26. A libertarian militia! Who knew?!

    Anyway, the oath keeper is right on everything he said. And that last murder he details was premeditated first degree murder. That pig should fry.

    1. That pig should fry.

      If he were a horse, or a cow or some other animal he probably would, but he’s a pig. “Some animals are more equal than others.”

  27. Ah, so this is where all the good cops went.

  28. But Vox told me they’re racists!

  29. maybe I am wrong. Y’all having given me some rational reasons as to why the oath keepers cannot be classified as a vigilante group. My initial comment was false.
    .
    NEVER BACK DOWN.
    If you turn and run, the bear clown will most assuredly kill and eat you.

  30. but what about all the memes I saw yesterday?!?!?! they can’t be wrong!

  31. Smells like Tulpa in here. At least someone is getting the ad views.

  32. How ironic that this took place in Ferguson, but he didn’t include a reference Michael Brown. You know, the event that ignited all of this.

    I guess the DoJ’s investigation scuttling the “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative might have something to do with that.

  33. Belmar should know about inflammatory gangs: he runs one.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.